[2012] KEHC 2591 (KLR)
The court held that the application for substitution was fatally defective and premature because the suit had abated by operation of law after one year elapsed from the plaintiff's death without substitution. Under Order 24 rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, substitution must occur within one year, failing...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 2591 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Chege Mwangi; Applicant: Peter Chege Mwangi; Applicant: Virginia Wanjiru Mwangi; Applicant: Samuel Njoroge Mwangi; Respondent: Obadiah Kiritu Methu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 52 of 1993
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Extension of Time to Substitute Deceased Plaintiff
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- SP Ouko
- Legal Topics
- Abatement of Suit, Substitution of Parties, Revival of Suit
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
John Chege Mwangi
Applicant
Peter Chege Mwangi
Applicant
Virginia Wanjiru Mwangi
Applicant
Samuel Njoroge Mwangi
Applicant
Obadiah Kiritu Methu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Extension of Time to Substitute Deceased Plaintiff
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to extension of time to substitute the deceased plaintiff with themselves as administrators of the estate.
- 2 Whether the suit had abated by operation of law due to lapse of time without substitution.
- 3 Whether the application for substitution is competent in the absence of an application for revival of the abated suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the application for substitution was fatally defective and premature because the suit had abated by operation of law after one year elapsed from the plaintiff's death without substitution. Under Order 24 rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, substitution must occur within one year, failing which the suit abates. The only remedy after abatement is to apply for revival under Order 24 rule 7(2). Since no application for revival was made, there was no suit in existence to allow substitution. The court found that the applicants' reliance on the court's discretion to extend time was misplaced, as the suit was already abated and non-existent. The cited authorities were...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application dated 29th September, 2011 is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
Civil suit 52 of 1993
JOHN CHEGE MWANGI
PETER CHEGE MWANGI
VIRGINIA WANJIRU MWANGI
SAMUEL NJOROGE MWANGI (as administrators of the estate ofthe late FRANCIS CHEGE MWANGI...............................................................APPLICANTS
VERSUS
OBADIAH KIRITU METHU...............................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
This ruling is in respect of the Notice of Motion dated 29th September, 2011 brought under Order 24 rule 3(2); Order 50 rule 6 and Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
The applicants in this application, John Mwangi Chege, Peter Chege Mwangi, Virginia Wanjiru Mwangi and Samuel Njoroge Mwangi, are seeking for extension of time within which to file an application to substitute the Plaintiff in this suit, Francis Mwangi Chege, now deceased, with themselves as the administrators of the estate of the said deceased person.
The application is premised on the following grounds that the cause of action survived the plaintiff; that the time within which the applicants ought to have brought the application for substitution of the deceased lapsed as they were pursuing the grant of letters of administration of the estate of the deceased; that the delay in filing the application for substitution was not deliberate but was occasioned by factors beyond the applicants’ control; that the applicants got to know of the pending suit late and; that the defendant will not suffer prejudice.
In reply to the application the respondent filed the grounds of opposition dated 8th November 2011, in which he states that, the application is grossly incompetent, bad in law and unknow in law; that the suit has already abated; that no reasons have been given for delay; and that there is a similar application pending in court.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the delay in presenting the application for substitution has been sufficiently explained and that under Order 24 rule 3 (2) the court has unlimited power to extend time. She relied on the decision in the case of Apufia Wangari Muraguri V. David Wanjohi Muraguri, Nyeri HCCC No.156 of 1993.
Learned counsel for the Respondent, opposed the application and submitted that the application has been brought under the wrong provisions of the law, as the suit had abated. He opined that the application ought to have been brought under Order 24 rule 7 (2) and not under Order 24 rule 3(2)of theCivil Procedure Rules.
The law regarding substitution of a deceased plaintiff with his personal representative is found in Order 24 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, under which the court has power, on application for substitution by the legal representatives of the deceased, where the cause of action survives the deceased, to cause the representative of the deceased to be made a party to the suit in place of the deceased plaintiff.
Under Sub-rule 2 of rule 3 the application for substitution must be made within one year from the date of death of the deceased failing which the suit shall abate so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned by operation of the law.
The remedy available upon the suit abating is to apply for the revival of the suit before any other application can be made. See Order 24 rule 7:
“The person claiming to be the legal representative of a deceased may apply for an order to revive a suit which has abated and if proved that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from continuing the suit, the court shall revive the suit or set aside such dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit.”
The suit herein abated on 30th June 2010, a year after the death of the plaintiff as no application for substitution of the plaintiff was made by the applicants or any other person. The suit therefore, abated. The suit having abated it is, in law, dead and none existent. The only way to breath life into it is by way of an application for its revival under Order 24 rule 7 (2)aforesaid
No such application has been made before this court or any other court. The application before me is therefore premature and fatally defective as the same is based on a none existent suit.
Regarding the authority cited by the applicants, apart from the circumstances in the facts in the said authority being different from the facts in this case, it is a decision of a court of coordinate jurisdiction. See Evanson Nguti Kamanda V. Peter Gicharu Ngige, ELd. HCCC No.79 of 2001 and Mark Akhonya Amunze V. Gopalbhai Karsan Patel & Another, (2006) e KLR.
The upshot of the foregoing is that the application fails and is consequently dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nakuru this 27th day of July, 2012.
W. OUKO
JUDGE